wb_generate_corridor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavioral trait: the operation is non-destructive by default and only mutates under write=true. It says nothing about what is created in the scene, whether a prior generation is overwritten, permission requirements, or failure modes when assets are not indexed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the safety gate. Nothing is padded, though 'verified indexed assets' is unexplained jargon that adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a 13-parameter, 7-required mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description addresses only one parameter. An agent could select the tool but would have to guess at most argument values, so the definition is not complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the meaning of `write` (dry-run vs. commit), but `file`, `parent`, `catalog`, `wall_asset`, `floor_asset`, `length`, `width`, `segment`, `name`, and the `x`/`y`/`z` coordinates are left completely unexplained, including units and whether coordinates are relative or absolute.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Generate') with a specific artifact ('corridor shell') and names the input constraint ('from verified indexed assets'), which separates it from sibling generators like wb_generate_road, wb_generate_fence, and wb_generate_room. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Dry-run unless write=true' clause tells the agent it is safe to invoke by default and how to escalate, which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no statement about when to pick this tool over the other wb_generate_* tools, nor any prerequisite about how assets become 'verified indexed' before calling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.